02-28-2017, 09:54 PM
How about this as a way to consider the climate change debate:
Scenario 1 - proceed from this day as if the science is correct. Humans buy fully into it and begin to take steps to correct climate change before it is too late. 50 years from now, we discover the science was incorrect, and that the climate change was totally natural.
Scenario 2 - proceed from this day as if the science is totally wrong. Humans continue doing what we have been doing. 50 years from now we find out the science was totally correct and humans were causing accelerated climate change.
What is the downside of scenario 1 vs scenario 2?
In scenario 1 we have further developed and enhanced alternative fuels and energy methods, we have developed the infrastructure for these alternative energy sources, we have lessened our dependence on foreign oil, we have reduced all types of pollution, etc. In short, we have a cleaner, more sustainable way of living on this planet.
In scenario 2, we end up in a tenuous position, maybe beyond the tipping point of serious ecological damage, and look back and say "we knew this 50 years ago, why didn't we do anything back then?" In short, we're more screwed.
When you look at it that way, there really is not much of a downside to proceeding as if all the science is correct at this point.
Scenario 1 - proceed from this day as if the science is correct. Humans buy fully into it and begin to take steps to correct climate change before it is too late. 50 years from now, we discover the science was incorrect, and that the climate change was totally natural.
Scenario 2 - proceed from this day as if the science is totally wrong. Humans continue doing what we have been doing. 50 years from now we find out the science was totally correct and humans were causing accelerated climate change.
What is the downside of scenario 1 vs scenario 2?
In scenario 1 we have further developed and enhanced alternative fuels and energy methods, we have developed the infrastructure for these alternative energy sources, we have lessened our dependence on foreign oil, we have reduced all types of pollution, etc. In short, we have a cleaner, more sustainable way of living on this planet.
In scenario 2, we end up in a tenuous position, maybe beyond the tipping point of serious ecological damage, and look back and say "we knew this 50 years ago, why didn't we do anything back then?" In short, we're more screwed.
When you look at it that way, there really is not much of a downside to proceeding as if all the science is correct at this point.
